…as company is accused of using outdated 2015 policy instead of the one updated in 2021
Mohloai Mpesi
THE Lesotho Electricity Company (LEC)’s Acting Managing Director, Nathaniel Maphathe, has come under fire from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for allegedly manipulating his appointment for personal financial gain.
According to the PAC, Mr Maphathe ensured he received M170,000 monthly in acting salary, which is equal to that of suspended Managing Director Mohlomi Seitlheko.
Mr Maphathe is entitled to M17,000 under the parastatal’s 2021 compensation policy, which stipulates that acting officials should receive only 10 percent of the substantive position holder’s salary.
The LEC appeared before the PAC on Monday to explain irregularities relating to the acting allowances for its executives. The committee questioned the rationale behind the Board of Directors’ decision to apply the outdated 2015 acting allowance policy instead of the updated 2021 version.
The 2015 policy provides for acting officials to earn the difference between their substantive salary and that of the acting role, while the 2021 policy caps acting allowances at 10 percent of the substantive position’s salary.
The PAC session was chaired by Hope party leader, ‘Machabane Lemphane-Letsie, and included Basotho National Party (BNP) leader Machesetsa Mofomobe, All Basotho Convention (ABC) Member of Parliament (MP) Montoeli Masoetsa, Democratic Congress (DC) MP for Malimong Lephoi Makara, and Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) MP for Matala constituency Tšeliso Moroke.
Mr Seitlheko is among 10 members of LEC’s executive management currently under suspension. These include Corporate Secretary Attorney Khotso Nthontho, Head of Corporate Services Moipone Mashale, Head of Strategy and Growth Limpho Mokhesi, Head of Information Technology Sakhele Mapetja, Head of Finance ‘Makabelo Matsoso, Head of Customer Experience Lebohang Mohasoa, Head of Legal, Risk and Compliance Selebalo Ntepe, Head of Internal Audit Thato Matsoso, and Head of Operations Serolo Tikoe. Mr Nthontho has since resigned.
Dr Moroke accused Mr Maphathe of influencing the Management Executive Committee to revert to the 2015 policy during his appointment negotiations. He said Mr Maphathe, who was previously only a board member, pursued the Acting Managing Director role to benefit from executive perks.
In addition to the M170,000 acting salary, Mr Maphathe reportedly enjoys a company vehicle, a M4,000 fuel allowance, and mobile phone benefits, although he does not receive a housing allowance.
Meanwhile, Acting Head of Corporate Services, Boitumelo Adam, revealed that he received an acting allowance of M38,000 in addition to his M70,000 monthly salary. Under the 2021 policy, he would have been entitled to only M12,500, which is 10 percent of the M125,000 salary attached to the corporate services role.
Dr Moroke emphasised that Mr Maphathe’s actions were motivated by personal interests and contradicted the policy applied to others in similar roles.
“There is a benefit that you get when moved from the board of directors to the executive management. As a board member, you held no executive position. But in the management executive, you receive benefits. Hence, you ensured the 2015 policy was used instead of the 2021 policy that was still being applied when you arrived,” Dr Moroke charged.
In response, Mr Maphathe claimed there was no board resolution officially adopting the 2021 policy.
“We reviewed past documents and minutes of previous meetings but did not find any resolution approving the 10 percent acting allowance. Therefore, there was no official board meeting held on this matter. However, we do acknowledge the large discrepancy and the board will review the issue,” Mr Maphathe said.
Deputy board chairperson, Batalatsang Kanetsi, told the committee that the board had resolved to cancel bonuses for LEC employees for the previous financial year due to financial constraints.
“We recently held a board retreat to discuss the company’s way forward. Management raised the bonus issue as an urgent matter. Given the company’s financial situation, the board decided not to award bonuses.”
This statement drew sharp criticism from Ms Lemphane-Letsie, who questioned the board’s logic in maintaining inflated acting allowances while cutting staff bonuses.
“So, management failed to submit a paper to the board recommending a cut to the management’s acting allowances, despite the company’s financial strain, but they submitted an urgent paper to cut employee bonuses. Where is the logic in that?” she asked.
Mr Kanetsi responded that the board only acts based on the information brought before it by management.
“The board looks at the matters presented and the justifications given,” he said.
Mr Maphathe explained that he had submitted both the 2015 and 2021 policies to the board for direction after complaints from management and the workers’ union.
“The board needed to decide which policy should be standard. The 2015 policy was never repealed and could still be applied, while the 2021 policy lacks supporting board minutes,” he said.
Mr Nthontho, however, stated that the 2021 policy had been in use since its approval and that the board was aware of its existence.
“I resigned on 24 May 2025 after serving full notice. Although I no longer had access to documents or a company laptop, I managed to send a three-page document outlining the 2021 policy to the board. I believe it was received,” Mr Nthontho said.
He also said he had submitted a motivation document justifying the implementation of the policy.
“The document highlighted that the policy was developed with input from the union. Their contributions were recorded and included. The policy came from the HR division, was motivated, submitted to the board for approval, and returned to HR for implementation. That is why, for the past three years, people have been paid based on the 2021 policy.”
Acting Corporate Secretary, Phoka Matete, was asked whether he forwarded the documents to the board chairperson. He responded that he received two documents from Mr Nthontho but did not know what to do with them.
“He did not explain what the documents were for, and I did not follow up,” Dr Matete said.
